Acceleration due to gravity, and the force of landing on the ground

AI Thread Summary
Impact force calculations depend on the stopping distance or time, which are not easily defined in real-life scenarios. When a person falls from a height, the force upon impact can be derived from their velocity at impact, but assumptions about constant force can lead to inaccuracies. Using energy principles, the kinetic energy of the fall can be equated to the work done by the stopping force over a distance. In cases where a trampoline or cushion is involved, the calculations become more complex due to variable forces during deceleration. Overall, understanding the nuances of impact force requires a comprehensive model of the landing surface and the stopping process, which is often not addressed in basic physics problems.
SignSeeker7
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
I'm quite confused about impact force and weight, as well as momentum. Assuming someone were to fall from a 5-story building, about 20 m, how would you calculate the force upon impact? I know it involves momentum, but I can't quite grasp it.
Also, if someone fell from the building, but instead of landing on the concrete below, they instead landed on a trampoline or blanket suspended above the ground, something that would slow them down without being lethal, how would you show that? Would it involve the same equation?

EDIT: I'm ignoring air resistance as well. In case that changes things.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The reason you are confused about the "force of landing" is that this is not a well-defined concept without more information being given. You know the force of gravity, and the acceleration it produces (that's just g, a constant), so it's easy to get the velocity upon impact. But how do you convert that into a force? You need to know either the distance over which the falling person is stopped, or the time to stop them. Either of those will let you calculate the force, but even then you have to assume the force is constant, which is not a very good assumption at all. So anything you do is going to be pretty rough. However, if you do have a constant force of impact, and you know the distance over which it applies (so a harder surface would compress a smaller distance, for example), then you just say the force times the distance equals the kinetic energy of the falling person, and you do it all with energy. If you instead know the time it takes the person to stop, you would do it with momentum-- the force times the time must equal the momentum that the falling person acquired while falling.

But what I really want to stress is that you wouldn't know these things in any real application-- you would need a much more complete model of the response of the ground or trampoline or whatever. Then you would need to do a careful calculation of the stopping process, that was much more difficult than the simple calculation of the falling process. So that's why you really don't encounter the "force of impact" very often in basic physics problems.
 
So would it be bad to assume that the person would stop instantaneously? I would think that would be incredibly difficult to happen in real life.
 
Yes, instantaneous stopping would require an infinite force. The fact is, we usually choose not to care what the force of stopping is, instead we focus on what is much easier to know-- the energy released when the person is stopped, and the momentum required to stop them. Going deeper into the stopping process is an issue for paratroopers and basketball sneaker designers!
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top